Testimonies 10/16/08

[jmflu]

If you can, then put yourself in NC's family's place for a minute. Think about your daughter going through all of the problems that we now know existed between BC and NC. Think about the moment that your daughter is missing. Your other daughter, her twin sister has been worried the husband of the missing daughter becoming more controlling and potentially violent for some time. Your son in law does not even call you when your daughter goes missing. First he doesn't call you to tell you that she is missing. He never calls you to tell you that he is worried about her. Finally your daughter turns up murdered. (And who knows what else I have not included in this scenario). Would any of this really be okay with you? Wouldn't you try to protect your Grandchildren?

I think that the Rentzes are incredible people. I think that they acted in the most responsible way possible for the girls.

They ARE incredible people, I agree. I love them just watching them on TV. What a loving group of people, and I am so sorry for their pain.

 

[ncsu95]

Take the "BC is guilty" out of it and you still have controlling behavior.

It seems you are unwilling to accept the definition of controlling behavior. Perhaps because you exhibit, or would exhibit it, yourself, and understand where BC was coming from, and you don't like it being called "controlling." Or, perhaps you have witnessed more extreme controlling behavior and therefore do not think BC's behavior falls into that category.

I don't accept your definition of controlling behavior.

 

[momto3kids]

Very difficult to act so rationally when one's daughter has just been murdered. I wouldn't want my grandchildren to stay in that home!!!!!

I think it all depends on the relationship the families have with in-laws.
It appears BC was some what distant with NC family, except for Xmas he recently spent with them.

If their relationship was stronger I feel it could have happened to where the girls could still be in Cary with the families help on both sides. He stated he was innocent and many times we see where the families believe the in-law until something surfaces to make them believe different.

These girl's are NC flesh and blood and NC family is clinging to them and NC love for her daughters. Imagine losing NC and then her children? We just don't know if BC or his family would cut them off from the girl's if they didn't act in this manner.

The Rentz's know and have seen more than we ever will know about. I feel they only did this in the best interest of the girl's.

 

[rwesafe]

If you can, then put yourself in NC's family's place for a minute. Think about your daughter going through all of the problems that we now know existed between BC and NC. Think about the moment that your daughter is missing. Your other daughter, her twin sister has been worried the husband of the missing daughter becoming more controlling and potentially violent for some time. Your son in law does not even call you when your daughter goes missing. First he doesn't call you to tell you that she is missing. He never calls you to tell you that he is worried about her. Finally your daughter turns up murdered. (And who knows what else I have not included in this scenario). Would any of this really be okay with you? Wouldn't you try to protect your Grandchildren?

I think that the Rentzes are incredible people. I think that they acted in the most responsible way possible for the girls.

The Rentzes are no doubt incredible people. However, the difficulties that were endured in that marriage were not the direct result of just one persons actions. NC had also had an affair, and potentially was engaged in another...NC shared in the spending problems...it is unfair and unjust to rest all of the issues with BC. Just because a person dies or is murdered does not automatically cast them into sainthood.

 

[jmflu]

I don't accept your definition of controlling behavior.

I didn't post a definition.

 

[rwesafe]

Take the "BC is guilty" out of it and you still have controlling behavior.

It seems you are unwilling to accept the definition of controlling behavior. Perhaps because you exhibit, or would exhibit it, yourself, and understand where BC was coming from, and you don't like it being called "controlling." Or, perhaps you have witnessed more extreme controlling behavior and therefore do not think BC's behavior falls into that category.

Are you attacking nc for not accepting YOUR definition of controlling? If this situation had been reversed and it was BC who was trying to take the kids to Canada without NC's consent...would he also be controlling? Or would it be justifiable if NC kept that passports so he could not take them?

 

[jmflu]

I think it all depends on the relationship the families have with in-laws.
It appears BC was some what distant with NC family, except for Xmas he recently spent with them.

If their relationship was stronger I feel it could have happened to where the girls could still be in Cary with the families help on both sides. He stated he was innocent and many times we see where the families believe the in-law until something surfaces to make them believe different.

These girl's are NC flesh and blood and NC family is clinging them and her love for her daughters. Imagine losing NC and then her children? We just don't know if BC or his family would cut them off from the girl's if they didn't act in this manner.

The Rentz's know and have seen more than we ever will know about. I feel they only did this in the best interest of the girl's.

I am specifically speaking of this situation, where NC's family knew of BC's controlling nature, problems, and KL's fear that NC was in danger. Their thoughts when NC disappeared were probably immediate that BC did something to her, and then his actions afterwards strengthened that feeling. There's no way they are going to trust BC with those kids after they feel he killed their daughter... they obviously felt the children were in immediate danger given the manner in which they took the kids from BC. And LE obviously felt that, too, or they would not have taken them.

 

[boxy]

If you can, then put yourself in NC's family's place for a minute. Think about your daughter going through all of the problems that we now know existed between BC and NC. Think about the moment that your daughter is missing. Your other daughter, her twin sister has been worried the husband of the missing daughter becoming more controlling and potentially violent for some time. Your son in law does not even call you when your daughter goes missing. First he doesn't call you to tell you that she is missing. He never calls you to tell you that he is worried about her. Finally your daughter turns up murdered. (And who knows what else I have not included in this scenario). Would any of this really be okay with you? Wouldn't you try to protect your Grandchildren?

I think that the Rentzes are incredible people. I think that they acted in the most responsible way possible for the girls.

Looks like another area we're going to have to agree to disagree. Thinking of the grandchildren was definitely an appropriate #1 priority but I think their actions have harmed the children. They have lost stability (not in their home, not with their friends, not in their school, not doing their usual activities) and they have been removed from the care of their one remaining parent. The public nature of the custody proceedings are also damaging to the children; they've lost their anonymity and the private aspects of their parents lives are splattered all of the place for the children (when they are older) and everyone else to read. This was all avoidable if NC's family had not turned their venom on BC. As hurt as they were at NC's murder, they could have (and in my opinion should have) sought to be supportive, not confrontational.

 

[ncsu95]

If you can, then put yourself in NC's family's place for a minute. Think about your daughter going through all of the problems that we now know existed between BC and NC. Think about the moment that your daughter is missing. Your other daughter, her twin sister has been worried the husband of the missing daughter becoming more controlling and potentially violent for some time. Your son in law does not even call you when your daughter goes missing. First he doesn't call you to tell you that she is missing. He never calls you to tell you that he is worried about her. Finally your daughter turns up murdered. (And who knows what else I have not included in this scenario). Would any of this really be okay with you? Wouldn't you try to protect your Grandchildren?

I think that the Rentzes are incredible people. I think that they acted in the most responsible way possible for the girls.

If you can, put yourself in BCs position. First, his wife is missing and is then found dead a couple of days later. Despite the fact that there is no real evidence linking you to the crime, all of her friends and family come out to the media and pronounce you guilty. Then your 2 children are removed from your care, crying and screaming wanting their daddy because your wifes family claimed you were suicidal and a danger to your children. Then you have websites like websleuths where tons more people analyze every singe breath you take to figure out how that proves you are guilty. Then your entire marriage and life is put out in depositions and affidavits so that everyone knows everything about you. Despite that, you move forward trying to get your kids back, even though every decision you and your lawyers make is criticized and questioned and twisted to fit it into the belief that you are guilt.

Wouldn't you fight for your children back?

 

[jmflu]

Are you attacking nc for not accepting YOUR definition of controlling? If this situation had been reversed and it was BC who was trying to take the kids to Canada without NC's consent...would he also be controlling? Or would it be justifiable if NC kept that passports so he could not take them?

First of all, I haven't defined controlling behavior. Second of all, I am attacking no one. Third of all, anyone who prevents someone from doing something is controlling them. I really think you are confusing control with justification of that control.

 

[boxy]

I am specifically speaking of this situation, where NC's family knew of BC's controlling nature, problems, and KL's fear that NC was in danger. Their thoughts when NC disappeared were probably immediate that BC did something to her, and then his actions afterwards strengthened that feeling. There's no way they are going to trust BC with those kids after they feel he killed their daughter... they obviously felt the children were in immediate danger given the manner in which they took the kids from BC. And LE obviously felt that, too, or they would not have taken them.

Do we know what LE thought about the safety of the children? I don't think so. We only know that Sasser found in the ex parte order that the children were thought to likely to be abused based only on the information from NC's family. I thought Sasser said that LE did not tell her anything of substance. Perhaps I am misremembering.

 

[jmflu]

Looks like another area we're going to have to agree to disagree. Thinking of the grandchildren was definitely an appropriate #1 priority but I think their actions have harmed the children. They have lost stability (not in their home, not with their friends, not in their school, not doing their usual activities) and they have been removed from the care of their one remaining parent. The public nature of the custody proceedings are also damaging to the children; they've lost their anonymity and the private aspects of their parents lives are splattered all of the place for the children (when they are older) and everyone else to read. This was all avoidable if NC's family had not turned their venom on BC. As hurt as they were at NC's murder, they could have (and in my opinion should have) sought to be supportive, not confrontational.

Wow-wee. If you are married, and your spouse murdered you, you would want your parents to sit back and act rationally about your children, rather than taking them from the person they feel murdered you?

And, IMO, those children have GAINED stability. They are doing great where they are, probably better than they were doing here. And if you're worried about their privacy and anonymity, why would you want to place them back in the middle of all this mess??

 

[ncsu95]

Looks like another area we're going to have to agree to disagree. Thinking of the grandchildren was definitely an appropriate #1 priority but I think their actions have harmed the children. They have lost stability (not in their home, not with their friends, not in their school, not doing their usual activities) and they have been removed from the care of their one remaining parent. The public nature of the custody proceedings are also damaging to the children; they've lost their anonymity and the private aspects of their parents lives are splattered all of the place for the children (when they are older) and everyone else to read. This was all avoidable if NC's family had not turned their venom on BC. As hurt as they were at NC's murder, they could have (and in my opinion should have) sought to be supportive, not confrontational.

Correct. Without the custody battle, very little of this would have been made public so far, including the affair their mother had. The only way it would have become public is if BC was ever charged. They have absolutely harmed the children in ways that won't be known for years. I don't think they intended to do that, but these children will grow up and know things about their mother and father that they shouldn't have known.

 

[boxy]

First of all, I haven't defined controlling behavior. Second of all, I am attacking no one. Third of all, anyone who prevents someone from doing something is controlling them. I really think you are confusing control with justification of that control.

By this definition, NC's family is controlling. They are preventing BC from having custody of his children.

 

[jmflu]

If you can, put yourself in BCs position. First, his wife is missing and is then found dead a couple of days later. Despite the fact that there is no real evidence linking you to the crime, all of her friends and family come out to the media and pronounce you guilty. Then your 2 children are removed from your care, crying and screaming wanting their daddy because your wifes family claimed you were suicidal and a danger to your children. Then you have websites like websleuths where tons more people analyze every singe breath you take to figure out how that proves you are guilty. Then your entire marriage and life is put out in depositions and affidavits so that everyone knows everything about you. Despite that, you move forward trying to get your kids back, even though every decision you and your lawyers make is criticized and questioned and twisted to fit it into the belief that you are guilt.

Wouldn't you fight for your children back?

Would someone who does a lot better research than I care to insert the reasons and missing info from this story that paint Brad as a saint?

 

[ncsu95]

I didn't post a definition.

Then by all means, please show me a clinical definition that defines taking passports to prevent your spouse from illegally taking your children out of the country (which would be considered kidnapping) as a controlling behavior.

 

[rwesafe]

First of all, I haven't defined controlling behavior. Second of all, I am attacking no one. Third of all, anyone who prevents someone from doing something is controlling them. I really think you are confusing control with justification of that control.

No, I think that it is you that is confused. You must not have children or this would not be such an issue for you to wrap your mind around. Not wanting to lose your children does not make you a controlling person.

 

[jmflu]

Correct. Without the custody battle, very little of this would have been made public so far, including the affair their mother had. The only way it would have become public is if BC was ever charged. They have absolutely harmed the children in ways that won't be known for years. I don't think they intended to do that, but these children will grow up and know things about their mother and father that they shouldn't have known.

And they would never have known them if their father hadn't murdered their mother.

JMO, of course.

 

[jmflu]

By this definition, NC's family is controlling. They are preventing BC from having custody of his children.

Yep. And I'd much rather they be in control than Brad.

 

[momto3kids]

I am specifically speaking of this situation, where NC's family knew of BC's controlling nature, problems, and KL's fear that NC was in danger. Their thoughts when NC disappeared were probably immediate that BC did something to her, and then his actions afterwards strengthened that feeling. There's no way they are going to trust BC with those kids after they feel he killed their daughter... they obviously felt the children were in immediate danger given the manner in which they took the kids from BC. And LE obviously felt that, too, or they would not have taken them.

I agree. And given the relationship between them were different I think the subject of custody would not be an issue today.

They witnessed and heard more between NC & BC than they spoke about Thursday during the hearing. I just don't find them of the arrogance nature, or gotcha. They had reason to do what they did which we are not entitled to all the details at this time or ever.